El Diablo said:
fish eel said:
Get over it el diablo.
If Fleming should have been charged for that result, then surely S R waugh should have been charged for the 99 world cup match v west indies?
Why, they won?
Not even similar to losing a match.
fool
Yep they deliberately lost the match.
You make out like they were chasing 112 on a flat deck. Oops, sorry, Australia were.
Lets game some facts into your morbid, boring, twisted, and insane fascination with Mark Waugh/Shane Warne style match fixing.
South Africa made 270. Not every day you're going to chase that total down.
New Zealand's first aim would always have been to win that match. The reason you haven't brought Waugh up is some tripe that Australia won. Well, gee, gumshoe, after bowling a team out for 110, you'd downright hope they'd win. 99% you'll win those matches. South Africa scored 270 odd, less than 5% you win those matches, even less for some reason on Australian grounds. But don't let facts stand in the way of a good, solid dribble.
New Zealand in reply finished with 8/203. You seem to love the fact that New Zealand apparently slowed down at the end. Adam Parore picked up 36 from 67 unbeaten, Daniel Vettori picked up 20 from 39 unbeaten. Either were hardly in vintage touch. Their run rate for the last 10 was about 4.5. Not the worst for messers 9 and 10.
New Zealand also sent out Andre Adams, a noted big hitter, at #3 to try and have a whirl at the total full on. If Adams came off for 70 or 80, New Zealand would win. Craig McMillan scored 46 off 41. Hmmm, they're odd tactics for deliberately trying to lose a match by a certain margin. Maybe Macca was snicking them all through the slips??
There were certain trends that happened in this match that happened all series in NZ v South Africa one day matches. New Zealand made a good start with the ball, knocking over a few wickets and were right on top at 4/35. Boucher, as he did a lot through the series against New Zealand, played a very aggressive innings, and Jonty Rhodes, who was no slouch, picked up a tonne. To top it off, as was the trend most of the way through the series, Shaun "Richie Cunningham" Pollock sealed the deal with some collosal hitting, and from recollection, it was not bad bowling, full on about middle and leg, but Richie boy kept slapping them over long off and long on - he was facing James Franklin, who as Justin Langer showed can be hit if he doesn't get his length right given his lack of pace.
New Zealand lost most, if not all of their matches that summer against South Africa. For a 3-4 year period, New Zealand simply for one reason or another could not beat South Africa. So the loss overall is no surprise. New Zealand has usually struggled in ODI's batting at the WACA as well, in 93/94 they were bundled out very cheaply from memory, they struggled here, and there's another match I can't remember exactly but they struggled to bat there also.
The trends continued, Makhaya Ntini, a bowler New Zealand has for some reason or another always struggled with, knocked the top off the New Zealand innings. Nicky Boje, for some reason or another, another bowling on this particular tour that New Zealand struggled with (as Australia had a couple of seasons prior) bowled a metronomical spell. My recollection here was Macca tried to get into Boje, but couldn't, and a couple of the other lads had a lot of swings and misses trying to up the going rate.
Coindentally, New Zealand finished with about 200 odd, the average score in the second innings at Perth is 212. Yep, thats baffling to figure how New Zealand could be about 10 under the grounds average. Bring in the ICC Match Corruption committee there.
New Zealand's RPO for the match was a fraction above 4 per over, not great, but not far off the Perth ground average. Australia's RPO coincidentally in the Waugh/Bevan farce was
2.72 runs per over. Hmm, which is the bigger crime. New Zealand with 8 wickets down scored nearly twice the rate Australia did even though Australia only lost 4 wickets. Yep, I know who's more contrived a result here.
Steve Waugh's strike rate was 26. Michael Bevan's was 29. Parore's was 53. Vettori's 51. Compare that. Waugh and Bevan together chasing 111 with 4 wickets down, Parore and Vettori together at about 150 odd for 8 chasing 270 odd.
So your theory is based on a Richard Booch piece which doesn't appreciate the myth that it was a deliberate go slow theory? Well, gee, I guess the following comments about the Australians would have you knocking Steve Waugh off the official players register too, huh?
"Australia to adopt go-slow tactics when they were within sight of victory"
"But they dragged out the finale to such an extent that the last 19 runs took 13 overs to arrive - not because of any particular pressure by the West Indies bowlers"
"It was a drab contest and the crowd heckled their discontent as the game degenerated into a farce, in its latter stages"
"Australia's Steve Waugh admitted that the final half-hour was not ``good entertainment'' for the crowd, adding, ``but it wasn't our fault.'' He said the tactic had been discussed at the team meeting on the eve of the game" - OH NO!!! Stevey boy just admitted it was a deliberate tactic. Hell, I'm awaiting El Diablo's continued farcical comments on him.
"Waugh added: ``I don't know about moral, but it's in the rules,'" - hmmm, I guess that makes Greg Chappell okay, because for some reason so was underarm
"Waugh, too, denied suggestions of collusion though he did say ``it was pretty obvious what was going on out there''"
- thats courtesy of the Electronic Telegraph
"Once the captain was satisfied his team's position was impregnable, Plan B, for block, was implemented. "
"Utterly undeterred by a chorus of jeering and booing, the two Australians patted back half-volleys, left deliveries wide of off-stump alone and turned down palpable singles"
- courtesy of Tony Cozier. Rivitting stuff. Just the moral fibre cricket should be made of, entertain the crowd? Win the game to the BEST of your ability?
I wonder who's playing the fool here?
